Extension card · Spherical
Spherical fuzzy PROMETHEE (Sharaf, 2021)
This is the form of PROMETHEE for situations where criterion scores are given as a degree of support, a degree of rejection and a degree of hesitancy, each supplied separately by the expert. Because no direct difference can be taken between two spherical fuzzy numbers, the comparison runs through an intermediate closeness ratio.
Base method
PROMETHEE →
Philosophy, mechanics, strengths and weaknesses are on the base method card; this card describes only the difference.
Data type (family)
Spherical →
What this data type is, when to use it, how to write it in a cell: the family's full account is here.
What Changes from the Base Method?
Four things change; the logic of entering and leaving flow does not.
Cells. In crisp PROMETHEE every cell is a single number. Here every cell is three numbers: a degree of support (μ), a degree of rejection (ν) and a degree of hesitancy (π), the sum of whose squares cannot exceed 1. Hesitancy is not a residual left over, as it is in intuitionistic or Pythagorean structures; the expert supplies it separately.
An unusual intermediate step: relative closeness. Direct subtraction is not defined between spherical fuzzy numbers. So a closeness ratio is first computed for every cell against an ideal and an anti-ideal point, as in crisp TOPSIS. The difference between two alternatives is the crisp difference between these two closeness ratios; the spherical fuzzy numbers themselves are never subtracted.
A six-rung preference function. In crisp PROMETHEE the preference function is usually defined through thresholds (indifference, preference). Here the closeness difference is mapped, by its magnitude, onto one of six verbal rungs (very weak, weak, moderate, strong, very strong, absolute preference), and each rung has its own spherical fuzzy counterpart. If the difference is negative, the complementary rung is used.
Flows stay spherical fuzzy; the score is taken only at the very end. The leaving and entering flows are sums of these spherical fuzzy preference cells and are themselves spherical fuzzy numbers. The net flow is only crisped at the very last step, by scoring these two flows.
DecisionMind holds the base method's leaving/entering-flow summation logic fixed in this extension; what changes is how a preference turns into a cell and how those cells are summed.
How to Read the Output
What stays the same as the base method is that the result is again a net flow and a rank. The difference is that this net flow comes from the score of spherical fuzzy flows that have already passed through a six-rung preference scale.
When the difference is large (a closeness gap above one half), the preference rung settles at the extreme, absolute preference. If several pairs of alternatives show a large gap, the flows can end up very close to one another; a small gap between net flows does not then mean the alternatives are genuinely close, it can mean the scale has saturated at its extreme.
Thus instead of writing:
"The net flows are very close, so the alternatives are of equal value"
the report should read:
"Because the closeness gaps are large, the preference rung has settled at the extreme in most pairs; the net flows coming out close together shows that the scale has saturated, not that the alternatives are equivalent"
When to Prefer This over the Base Method
Use this when the expert's hesitancy is information asked for and reported separately, rather than whatever is left over after support and rejection. The spherical fuzzy data-type card sets out this distinction in detail; if hesitancy has not been measured, this extension is not needed.
If the three degrees already fit within the picture fuzzy constraint (summing to at most 1), there is no need to move to the spherical structure; the relevant PROMETHEE extension is enough. The spherical structure should not be confused with the Pythagorean or q-rung structures: in the spherical structure a third degree, hesitancy, comes directly from the expert, whereas in the others it does not.
Mistakes Specific to This Extension
Entering data without checking the value-space constraint. This is the manifest's own warning: every cell must satisfy μ² + ν² + π² ≤ 1, and this must be verified before the calculation runs.
Interpreting the preference rung as saturated without noticing. If closeness gaps are large, most pairs fall into the absolute-preference rung and the flows converge; this should be read as "the scale has saturated," not as "the alternatives are equivalent."
Changing the score function without noticing. This is the manifest's own warning: more than one score function exists for reducing a spherical fuzzy number to a single number, and the one chosen affects the result; which function was used must be stated in the report.
Crisping spherical fuzzy flows too early. If the leaving and entering flows are reduced to a crisp number before the net flow is calculated, the three-degree information carried in the intermediate step is lost; crisping happens only at the very last step.
The governing principle is this:
Spherical fuzzy PROMETHEE is for situations where the three degrees come from the expert; but because subtraction is not defined between spherical numbers, preference is mapped onto a closeness gap, and that in turn onto a six-rung scale. This scale's saturation point must be taken into account when reading the result.
Cases
The first case is DecisionMind's validation example. The second case is fictional.
1. Illustrative example: Choosing among three candidate sites for a data centre
A technology firm will choose among three candidate sites for a new data centre. There are three criteria: suitability of energy cost, adequacy of network infrastructure and low climate risk; all three are "higher is better." Every candidate site is scored with a (support, rejection, hesitancy) triple drawn from expert assessment. The criterion weights are 0.40, 0.35 and 0.25.
| Site | Suitability of energy cost | Adequacy of network infrastructure | Low climate risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 | (0.7; 0.2; 0.5) | (0.8; 0.1; 0.4) | (0.6; 0.3; 0.5) |
| Y2 | (0.9; 0.1; 0.3) | (0.6; 0.3; 0.6) | (0.8; 0.2; 0.4) |
| Y3 | (0.5; 0.4; 0.6) | (0.7; 0.2; 0.5) | (0.7; 0.1; 0.5) |
| Weight | 0.40 | 0.35 | 0.25 |
The method builds an ideal and an anti-ideal point for each criterion. It computes each cell's closeness ratio against these two points and maps the pairwise differences onto the six-rung preference scale. It then sums the spherical fuzzy flows and scores them at the very last step to obtain the net flow.
| Site | Net flow |
|---|---|
| Y1 | 0.0000 |
| Y2 | 0.0000 |
| Y3 | −0.0000423 |
The result reads as follows. All three sites show large closeness gaps, and the preference rung settles at the extreme rung, absolute preference, in most criterion pairs. Because of this saturation, Y1 and Y2's net flows are too close to distinguish, and Y3's is only small enough to appear at the fifth decimal place.
The firm's hesitation: does this near-zero difference mean the three sites are genuinely equivalent? The differences in the inputs (Y2's support degree of 0.9 on energy-cost suitability against 0.7 and 0.5 for the others) are not small. The scale's saturation shows that even large input differences can be squeezed into the extreme preference rung; this shows not that the three sites are close to one another, but that the preference scale is not discriminating for this data.
In the report: "The difference between the net flows has come out negligibly small; this does not mean the alternatives are equivalent, it means the chosen six-rung preference scale has saturated at these input differences. The ranking alone is not sufficient for the decision."
Source: DecisionMind's validation example prepared for the spherical fuzzy PROMETHEE engine; the algorithm follows the seven steps set out by Sharaf (2021), and is written from the engine's current output. Net flows were computed by running the engine independently, and they match the manifest's own validation record exactly.
2. Care homes: Choosing a site for a new care home among three candidate buildings
A local government will choose one of three candidate buildings for a new care home. The criteria are: suitability of accessibility (lifts, ramps), proximity to a health facility, and adequacy of social space; all three are "higher is better." The evaluation team has scored every building on all three criteria with degrees of support, rejection and hesitancy; the hesitancy comes from some technical surveys that have not yet been completed.
The method computes each building's closeness ratio, maps the pairwise differences onto the preference scale, and sums and finally scores the spherical fuzzy flows. Suppose the building that scores strongest on accessibility turns out weakest on social space, yet still finishes first on net flow, because the weight on accessibility has been set higher than on the other two criteria.
The local government's hesitation: the hesitancy share on the social-space criterion may fall once the relevant technical survey is complete. In that case this building's closeness ratio could change and the ranking could be affected. The decision should not be finalised before the survey is complete.
In the report: "Because the weight on accessibility has been set high, the building that is strong on this criterion comes out clearly ahead; the hesitancy share on the social-space criterion comes from a technical survey that is not yet complete, and the result should not be finalised before that survey is done."
3. What Not to Do
In the data-centre table, reducing the three sites' spherical fuzzy triples from the outset to a simple difference such as (μ − ν) and running crisp PROMETHEE on that is wrong: it skips the hesitancy share and the six-rung preference scale entirely, and is not spherical fuzzy PROMETHEE. The second error is entering data without checking that cells satisfy μ² + ν² + π² ≤ 1; a triple that exceeds the constraint silently enters the calculation from the wrong point. The third error is reporting the net flows coming out close together as "all three alternatives are of equal value"; this closeness mostly shows that the preference scale has saturated, not that the alternatives are equivalent.
Sources
For the formulas behind each step, the intermediate tables and citation formats, see the DecisionMind method page: decisionmind.app/library/sf-promethee
Sharaf, I. M. (2021). Evaluating Geothermal Energy Systems Using Spherical Fuzzy PROMETHEE. In C. Kahraman & F. Kutlu Gündoğdu (Eds.), Decision Making with Spherical Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications (Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 392, pp. 375–398). Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-45461-6_16
Kutlu Gündoğdu, F., & Kahraman, C. (2019). Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(1), 337–352. DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-181401
Brans, J. P., & Vincke, Ph. (1985). A preference ranking organisation method (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Management Science, 31(6), 647–656. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.31.6.647
Ashraf, S., Abdullah, S., Mahmood, T., Ghani, F., & Mahmood, T. (2019). Spherical fuzzy sets and their applications in multi-attribute decision making problems. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(3), 2829–2844. DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-172009